Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Japanese castle

Japanese castle
I have just finished a significant expansion and renovating of this article which I created in May 2005. I would really like to be able to hold this up as an example of my best work, since it is (a) largely my own work, with, for the most part only images and some minor stylistic/grammatical changes made by other editors, (b) a broad, important, and central topic, (c) one that is particularly non-esoteric and of general interest. Any suggestions anyone can make to improving this article would be most appreciated.

I've tried not to go overboard on detail, as it really doesn't need to describe every single important development in architecture, nor every military tactical/strategic/technological advancement - it's meant to be a thorough overview, and further details can be explained in separate articles (e.g. I may be creating at some point in the near future separate articles on different styles of Japanese roofing).


 * 1) Are there sentences that are awkward or hard to understand?
 * 2) Are there points that are superfluous or redundant?
 * 3) Points that are missing?
 * 4) How does the thing flow overall? - this is a problem I always have trouble with in my actual academic papers: paragraphs that don't flow nicely into one another thematically.

Thanks, all. LordAmeth 10:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's

 * It's certainly very informative, though I think it's to have only two sentences for "Japanese castles in Korea". That should certainly be expanded, if only into a few paragraphs. As it is, it just looks like an after-thought. The pictures are nice, but I think should be spaced out more - there's a bit of a gap in the middle of the article between pictures.


 * The article also needs more proof-reading. At the start I noticed the following:


 * "Matsue Castle is probably the only castle in Japan to have never been attacked or suffer any damage, and what remains today is of the original structure, built in 1611."


 * This implies that Matsue Castle is the only castle to have ever been attacked! Maybe you or another contributor meant the only castle still in Japan that wasn't rebuilt but actually attacked? Obviously this needs to be corrected to make it clearer.


 * Other somewhat lazy phrases such as "Trees and the like were cleared" are a shame. Why not just say "trees and other foliage"?


 * I also think the "Architecture and defenses" section should be broken up - it's just one very long piece of text at the moment, which makes it difficult to read.


 * Grammar & spelling - American English? I'm biased, but I always like to see English-English, unless it's a US article.


 * One small thing are the references - I think they need to be changed a bit with dates at the end and titles put in italics. Also fuller descriptions of the web-links.


 * This is a short peer-review, but I hope it's given you a few pointers to start with. I'm sure that more people will provide feedback in due course. John Smith&#39;s 17:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're misreading the sentence about Matsue. It does not say that it was the only castle to be attacked - in fact, it says just the opposite, that Matsue was never attacked, and is thus completely intact as it was originally built. (Which, actually, isn't true, and I need to look into which other castles share this characteristic.)
 * No problem.


 * As for references, I know I'm not following a standard as set by Harvard or Oxford or anything, but it contains all the necessary information. I can change it if you'd like, if you think it necessary, but I will point out that it is quite standard to underline, and not italicize, book titles, so as to distinguish them from article titles.
 * It isn't "necessary" given you're not going for FA status or anything similar. But I think the Author, title (place of publication, date of publication) format looks better personally.


 * As for language, I can add a few 'u's here and there, but I'm afraid I wouldn't know how else to make it more "British English", and I'd rather just write naturally than worry about every little detail of which words or phrases are Americanisms or how to change them.LordAmeth 11:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just something to keep in mind if someone were to come along and make it British English. Also I hope you'll pick up on the structual point I made. John Smith&#39;s 14:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooops, you already have! Thanks, it looks a lot nicer now. :) John Smith&#39;s 14:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
This is quite well-written. A few points to work on, though: Kirill Lokshin 17:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations! (But I'm sure you're aware of this issue already. ;-)
 * "While European castles stereotypically have only one main wall" - this isn't really true; see concentric castle. Indeed, the bulk of that section applies equally well to more advanced European castles (e.g. Krak des Chevaliers).
 * "Palisades lined the top of the castle's walls, and patches of trees, usually pines, symbolic of eternity or immortality" - the end of the sentence seems to be missing.
 * The "Famous castles" and "See also" sections ought to be eliminated by incorporating the links into the text. If a separate list of prominent castles is desired, it'd probably be better off in a floated box off to the side somewhere.
 * Are there any diagrams of the castle layout available?


 * I'm looking into finding layout diagrams that are useful & valuable, and copyright-free. LordAmeth 11:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember you can use the "fair use" copyright tag if you can't find any "free" images. John Smith&#39;s 14:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan
Really interesting article, I knew nothing about Japanese castles at all prior to reading this. Some questions though:
 * "Japanese castles (城, shiro?) were large fortresses" - they only built large ones? doesn't that make all the ones they built actually average size by definition? I think this needs qualifying or explaining
 * Done.
 * "This was especially true during the later Sengoku, or 'Warring States' period, when many of these castles were first built. However, many were rebuilt, either during the Sengoku or Edo periods" - if the Sengoku period was "later", how come they were rebuilt after that in the Edo period?? Doesn't that make warring states and Sengoku periods earlier? ie if you use "later" (a comparative adjective) you should probably state later than what
 * The intention was not to imply that Sengoku was "later" than another period, but to refer to the later portion of (within) the Sengoku period. I've changed the wording a bit. I hope it's clearer now.
 * Ah ok, yes, much clearer now.


 * Were they used in the same way as European castles to guard strategic points? Article seems to indicate they were only used as daimyo's bases in towns.
 * The very first paragraph states that they were, though I understand that it's not exactly emphasized or repeated throughout much of the article. I've expounded upon that a bit at the beginning of the "History" section - is it good now, or needs more work?
 * no, that's fine now


 * "remain extant in their original forms, having suffered any damage from siege or other threats". I think you mean not having suffered any damage, or having suffered no damage
 * Right. Thanks.
 * " the rise of the samurai class towards the end of the period, and various disputes between noble families jostling for power and influence in the Imperial Court brought about further developments" - why did those things spur on castle development and what developments did they bring about?
 * I have tried to expand on the reasons and ways in which this change was so dramatic - samurai (essentially knights) were previously in the service of the Imperial Court and large battles were all but unheard of within the clans; what little fighting there was was against rebels, and outsiders (the natives, or other countries). How is this section now?
 * Again, this is fine now, none of these were big problems, just required a bit of tweaking as is now done.


 * "Unlike in Europe, where the advent of cannon spelled the end of the age of castles, Japanese castle-building was spurred, ironically, by the introduction of firearms" I think I would move to immediately after this sentence the reasons given below for why this was so, since it immediately sprang to my mind but I had to sit through another 2 paras to find out why. Even so, if the cannons were rarely used, why was castle building spurred on by them? Needs greater explanation
 * The key point here is the difference between cannon and firearms (muskets). It was the musket, not the cannon, which had a dramatic effect on Japanese tactics in this period. I do, however, need to look again into precisely the danger posed by muskets moreso than flaming arrows that would have spurred castle development.
 * Yep, I still think this needs explaining a little better if possible, but I understand this might need looking into further


 * "Cannon were rare in Japan due to the expense of obtaining them from foreigners, and the difficulty in casting such weapons themselves" - Why was casting weapons difficult in Japan compared to Europe? Japan would have been closer to China where gunpowder came from, and as is well known from Japanese swords, they didn't lack in metallurgy skills. Why couldn't they make cannons?
 * This is another thing I have to look into to find a reference for and to find a more involved explanation. I do know that the Japanese did not have the proper foundries for it - making swords is not the same scale as making cannon, but I need to look into this deeper.
 * There's probably a really good reason for it but I just think it needs explaining.


 * "The Sengoku period," is mentioned several times, but not given as a subheaded section as part of the series of periods under the history. why not?
 * Because, in terms of castle development, the first century or so of the Sengoku period was more or less a continuation of the developments of the previous century or so. I can add a sub-heading if you'd like, if you think it'll be clearer and more helpful. The Azuchi-Momoyama period, which is actually a sub-section within Sengoku and not a separate period following it (yes, I know it's confusing, and I'm sorry for that), marks a very significant departure from what came before, and so it gets its own heading.
 * I do think since it is mentioned it does need listing even as a subsection or similar, otherwise other readers are going to wonder too.


 * "Himeji Castle in Hyōgo Prefecture often substitutes for Edo Castle in film and television jidaigeki." Is this not notable for itself? I would change the image caption to simply "Himeji Castle in Hyōgo Prefecture".
 * Done.
 * "Samurai" - these are mentioned several times but I have no idea what they are. Are they like medeival European knights? Are they simple soliders? lords? any men in their own pay? pay for their own equipment or equipped by daimyo? roles?
 * I understand your confusion, and I don't fault you for it, but I do feel that this article is not the place to go into detail about this. Samurai do in fact share many features of the European knight, but while "knight" is akin to a rank (above page and squire, below lord), "samurai" is used to refer both to the warriors in battle, and to the warrior noble class as a whole. Members of this class ranged from the shogun (essentially a military leader who earned his power through military might, not unlike many European kings, e.g. William the Bastard), down to the daimyo (feudal lords), to commanders and mounted warriors, down to footsoldiers, squires and pages. Women of these noble families were "samurai" as well. Samurai warriors for the most part were retainers in service to a given lord (daimyo), and were supplied and equipped by their lord. To not have a lord was highly dishonorable, so the Western conception (if I understand the Western conception right) of being in your own pay, supplying yourself, and fighting for whoever will pay you, was not a common practice in Japan. I hope that clears things up for you - how much of that ought to go into the article, I'm not sure.
 * I would treat "samurai" as any other foreign-language word you would use and give it a brief explanation - even if most readers do have an idea of what they are, it will probably be from Hollywood and be very innaccurate. I wouldn't go into great detail, but I would give an inline parenthesised explanation or similar.


 * "However, walls were restricted to the castle compound itself; they were never extended around a jōkamachi (castle town)" but the picture below it appears to show a walled town
 * Indeed, castle complexes could get quite large, including within their walls residences for all the lord's retainers, Buddhist temples, various administrative buildings, smithies and workshops - but all of this was meant to serve the lord and the castle, and very few commoners lived or worked within the castle walls. The best example that comes to mind immediately is the White House - it contains offices, residential areas, cafeteria, parking garage, stables, communications center, etc, but anything that does not pertain directly to serving the functions of government or the food & shelter of government officials lies outside the gates, in the rest of Washington.
 * OK, I see. Perhaps make it clear the walls surrounded a fortified compound more so than just the castle itself?


 * "musha-gaeshi, meaning that they resist infiltration by samurai." Is there a more literal translation? I thought samurai was a Japanese transliteration, but neither "musha" or "gaeshi" is the world "samurai"
 * Musha literally means "martial person", therefore "warrior", while "samurai", like "knight", has more complex origins, and more specific meaning. I'd be happy to add a footnote to the caption explaining the meaning of the term better if you think it appropriate.
 * I don't think that it needs explaining in more detail, just that as I suspected, something like "resisting infilitration by armed persons" seems to be a better transliteration than specifically samurai, if I am correct in understanding that not everybody who fought was necessarily a samuarai.

Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "All in all" a little unencyclopedic


 * Thank you very much for your insights. It's good to hear from someone with little experience in the area, as it reveals the assumptions I've made, and the way it comes across to the average reader. These will be quite helpful towards pruning and finetuning the article. I do wonder, however, how much explanation is too much explanation - after all, this is not the place to go into extensive detail about what samurai are or what the Sengoku period was, right? LordAmeth 09:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made a number of changes, and responded to each of your points in italics, above. Thank you so much for your help in allowing me to see how the article might be viewed by someone who's not experienced in the subject. I look forward to your further suggestions. LordAmeth 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, its always to get help from experts to brush the article up factually and also from users completely unfamiliar with topic so that you can gauge an average reader's comprehension of the article. You've addressed almost all of my concerns, and I think the article looks in great shape. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)